From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Ultimate Feats
<< So, they may have failed to handle the OGC declaration in an insufficiently clear fashion they may be in breach, but I don't know if that's a clear allowance to go on a "search and snag" mission through their product unless you are willing to go head-to-head against them in court. >> Oh, I'm not saying someone should do this; I'm saying it will serve Mongoose right if someon does this. There's a difference. By having such a vague declaration of PI, Mongoose has very much increased the likelihood that some other publisher will view something as OGC that Mongoose viewed as PI. Then there may be discussions. If those don't work out, there may be legal notices. And if THOSE don't work out, then there may be a court battle. And in a usual derivative works case, the plaintiff has to prove that the new work is derivative, and the defendant has to prove otherwise. Now the plaintiff has the unusual position of trying to prove that the original work is NOT derivative, and the defendant has to prove that it is. I don't know if this makes the plaintiff's position weaker or stronger; but even if he wins, this court battle (should it get that far) is partly his fault for not doing his homework right in the first place. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
